Jimbo writes:
> RK, you need to take it through the mediation process
> and if that fails, through the arbitration process.
> Ranting on the mailing list is not helpful.
You seem to misunderstand my point: Mediation is about
coming to terms on what should be in an article.
Fortunately, that particular kind of problem isn't being
discussed here.
Danny doesn't make any edits to these articles; I perceived
him as being abusive, and that is a violation of Wikipedia
etiquette. He has made it clear that he has no intention of
adding to the articles in question, despite my own repeated
invitations for him to do so. He just was insulting me,
which is not the point of our project.
As regards JFW, I didn't bring any concerns to the list, it
was JFW who did this! I did reply, of course, to explain
my confusion at his letter. Summary: JFW can add any info
he likes; I'd be happy to see this. I repeatedly have
agreed with him on all the points he makes about NPOV and
article content, and so I do not understand why he has made
himself believe the opposite. I did, however, strongly
object made to a false claim about my not providing quotes
that he asked for. If someone doesn't like the content of
the quotes, they should complain to the author, not me!
(Of course, if you missed his original letter here, and
only saw my response, I can see how you would assume I was
venting inappropriately.)
Here is my point, and I think that its what everyone here
has always assumed as obvious: If you want to include a
point-of-view, then write it. Never criticise others for
not writing what you wish you had written yourself. This
point, which I have made twice now, surely is not
"ranting".
Sincerely,
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I'm not all that sure it is stated explicitly. Perhaps it should be
somewhere. But resetting the clock has occurred on other AC decisions.
Mr Natural health is a case in which I am familiar. He tried to avoid
his ban at first and had the clock reset.
Theresa
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Fortuny Ayuso [mailto:pfortuny@sdf-eu.org]
Sent: 11 September 2004 08:58
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Censorship by China or bigots in Wikipedia?
Yeah, it looks like, but where is that stated? I am probably asking
for some well-known info, but...
Thanks anyway for answering,
Pedro.
----- Forwarded message from Mitch Vogrein <mvogrein(a)cogeco.ca> -----
From: "Mitch Vogrein" <mvogrein(a)cogeco.ca>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:43:46 -0400
To: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia - Prescott Bush page
Yes, please. Or maybe you're fine with it the way it is. I understand that Wikipedia is a unique resource in that it's open to contibutors, and I wish I could, but I'm not a writer. Your email address is the single apparent address in the "contact us" page.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
To: "Mitch Vogrein" <mvogrein(a)cogeco.ca>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia
Right, well, I'm not the person to talk to about directly making changes,
may I forward your letter to some editors who can fix this?
Mitch Vogrein wrote:
> No actually. I'm just pointing out that this author is contradicting something stated earlier in the piece and eroniously vilifying some mysterious Canadian loggers. A lot of my friends are in forestry and they don't have a malevolent bone in their body. KIDDING!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
> To: "Mitch Vogrein" <mvogrein(a)cogeco.ca>
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia
>
>
> Can you make an edit to fix this?
>
> Mitch Vogrein wrote:
>
> > Your Prescott Bush page has the bullshit below on it.
> >
> > The New York Herald-Tribune never referred to him as "Hitler's Financial Angel". The Tribune referred to a German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel," and mentioned Bush only as an employee of an investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The label was ironic, since by the time the Tribune article appeared, Hitler had turned on Thyssen and imprisoned him. There has been a determined effort by Canadian bloggers, apparently connected with Lyndon LaRouche, to circulate reports that Bush
h
> imself was known as "Hitler's Angel".
> >
> >
>
> --
> "La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org
>
--
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org
----- End forwarded message -----
--
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org
A positive article 'Wiki's wacky but it works' in today's London Observer,
Business section, by John Naughton who typically writes on Internet topics.
It takes the line that WP is good at 'self-healing', and is generally better
(more comprehensive) than Britannica Online.
Charles
I'm taking the liberty of also forwarding John's below crucial and
spot-on observation to the WikiEN-l mailing list -- I would hope that
that's ok.
-- Jens
Begin forwarded message:
> From: John Collison <john(a)collison.ie>
> Date: 12 September 2004 18:51:12 GMT+02:00
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Rewarding volunteers
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
>
> I have to say I agree with Jimbo on this one. I was thinking about
> Wikipedia in the future for a while and I think we have to be careful
> where we go from here. Think about it, Wikipedia started out with a
> simple vision: a free encyclopedia where anyone could edit anything.
> Now, sysops, developers etc are getting more power, anons less
> trusted, and there is talk of paying developers. If we're not
> cautious, we could end up just like a conventional online
> encyclopedia. Sort of like the way animal farm went :-/.
> I think we should try and preserve the original idea of Wikipedia (and
> Wikimedia projects in general).
>
> -- John Collison (Ludraman)
> P.S. Sorry if I've made some mistake here it's my first time
> posting on the mailing list!
>
> On 12 Sep 2004, at 15:21, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>
>> Just to say my usual bit about this, I'm all for rewarding volunteers,
>> and the best way to do that is with kind words, mutual respect, and
>> admiration for good deeds. Mathematical formulas can never replace
>> taking the time to say "thank you" or "I am a fan of your work" when
>> you see an article that you like.
>>
>> Algorithmic reputation systems are always a temptation, just because
>> they are possible. But human reputation systems are much more nuanced
>> and powerful.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>>
>>
>> --
>> "La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on
>> fr.wikipedia.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
On 12 Sep 2004, at 01:08, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote:
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:41:38 +0000
> From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
>
> (We need a name for this phenomenon. "Abusive crusader"?)
''POV crusader''.
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com>
Again, I think we're looking at a fundamental misunderstanding here:
I DID NOT and I am not trying to ''exclude'' academics. We need
academics. The higher qualified the better. The more of them choose to
join our review club the better.
("review club" proposed here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/
030521.html)
Nobody (not me, anyway) has been, or is contesting that academic
individuals, their knowledge and the academic education system have
real usefulness. Again, the more academics join us, the better. The
only thing I am lobbying you all against is that we (a) make degrees a
requirement of some sort at any stage in the process and/or (b)
automatically value input from an academic more than input from a
non-academic. I still think it is obvious (to me anyway) that ''most''
of the time academics will prevail with their views.
''But they will do so '''based on the merit of what they say'' and NOT
based on the recognition of their title.''
Currently, no contributor is allowed to argue: "But I am a senior
professor of quantum dynamics, so I win and you shut up!" It is VERY
important that this remains so. Yes, there should be academics in the
review club, and no, they should not ever even mention their titles.
'''They should converse as EQUALS with all other fellow reviewers.'''
No one, not even a professor of quantum dynamics, should be allowed to
settle a dispute with a reference to their prior achievement (ie.
title, etc.). They should thus have ONE vote, just as everybody else.
This will not stop their valid views from prevailing.
Giving everybody the chance to truly converse as equals will bring out
the best in both academics and laymen alike.
(NB: My idea to ban even mentioning degrees is merely a ''safeguard
against self-censorship'' of non-academics. Because most non-academics
will indeed "shut up" if they notice the other person to have a title
-- out of exaggerated awe, even if they have perfectly points to make.)
Titles or degrees shouldn't be a requirement for joining ANY chapter of
the review club either. Qualified academics will ''automatically'' join
the relevant review boards. We do ''not'' have to look for "experts
with titles" in any way. We do ''not'' have to expressly set out to
install a quota of accredited academics into the review boards. Given
the mere establishment of ''sensible, disciplined and democratic''
fora, academics will join them in large numbers.
And they will be more productive there if we allow ANY interested
individuals to join as well, with requirements of ''constructiveness,
not of prior achievement'' in fields of knowledge work. Every parent
knows that it's children's questions that teach us the most.
> A stable version of Wikipedia has a questionable future if
> it does not rely on people with academic degrees as a very
> imporant part of our editorial review process.
We should continue to rely on ''people'' (a fair share of whom happen
to hold academic degrees). We should not rely on "degrees" per se.
> Anything
> less will result it in being considered one step above "fan
> fiction" by high-school, college and university professors.
Yes, outside esteem is an issue, because the traditional system of
knowledge review (see above link) is so well established. But again, as
mentioned here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030552.html
, outside and Wikipedian academics will, in time, do that work for us:
Just as those academics already in our midst, they will increasingly
come to recognize our value and '''become opinion leaders''', telling
those who need their truths "straight from the horse's mouth" that we
really ARE ''all that''.
> There is an evident distrust towards academic degrees here,
> and it doesn't help us.
No there isn't. Academics are welcome. '''I just want to avoid building
automatic bias towards opinions of degree holders back into a
revolutionarily unbiased system (the Wikipedia).'''
> It seems to stem from a
> misunderstanding of egalitarianism that many Wikipedia
> contributors have. Some people seem to think that
> egalitarianism means that all people are equally competant
> to review an article.
Well, I don't believe that.
But everybody should be given an equal shot at contributing to the
review process. Any less well thought out views will just not get very
far. BUT: --this is important to comprehend-- mostly less competent
people intermittently have very valid and well thought out
contributions to make. Under the traditional system of knowledge
review, those are almost always lost.
> This is just as true as saying that
> all people are equally tall, and that all food in a
> supermarket is equally nutritious. In other words, the
> proposition is violently false.
moot point
> I'd honestly be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s
> in Physics will produce better editorial oversight and
> corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies,
> when it comes to reviewing Physics articles. I'd honestly
> be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s in American
> Literature will produce better editorial oversight and
> corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies,
> when it comes to reviewing American literature articles.
What I believe you're missing is that the "Internet junkies" contain a
fair share of Ph.D.s -- and they will ''automatically'' find their way
into the relevant review boards.
> Accepting the fact that some people have studied a lot and
> have earned an academic degree does not prevent anyone else
> from contributing.
That's exactly what I seek to ensure, both with the edit process AND,
crucially, with the next generation of our review process.
> It does not prevent anyone else from
> offering corrections or edits. It isn't even
> anti-egalitarian. True egalitarianism only means that all
> people have a right to study a subject, and to try and
> become experts in said subject. It does *not* mean that
> all people are already experts on said subject!
>
>
> Robert (RK)
Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers
PS:
Selected related posts (mostly by me ;-) :
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030496.htmlhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030523.htmlhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030519.htmlhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030506.htmlhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030507.htmlhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html
(same link as above)
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030551.htmlhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030552.html
(same link as above)
As Robert wants to have the final word: I wrote to the list initially in
defence of Danny, and felt this was an opportune moment to unload some
frustration with RK.
Robert's point: "If you want to include a point-of-view, then write it" is
well taken. However, someone who is aware that another POV is extant should
try to include that POV to prevent an article from becoming lopsided
towards one view, while "the other side" is doing its research.
I agree that RFM would not have resolved the differences of opinion we have
been expressing on the list. RFAr might have.
--Jfdwolff
It's alright.. I tend to overreact. heh.
>From: Keith Maxwell <cremedelacreme04(a)yahoo.com.au>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?
>Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:41:27 +1000 (EST)
>
>Fellow Wikipedians,
>
>I apologise for failing to make it clear earlier that the stable edition
>was what I was talking about and who would have the authority to decide
>that an article was ready for publication. I think that the editorial board
>or committee for a particular subject elected by all registered members
>should approve articles published on that medium. The board should be
>elected regularly say yearly.
>
>
>The wikipedia should continue as it is with everyone being able to edit
>freely.
>
>Regards
>
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
I think that another wiki with "approved" versions of articles is a good
idea, so that it can be an authoritative source by current standards.
However, it shouldn't get in the way of editing articles on the regular
wiki. Requiring approval for edits would ruin the dynamics of being able to
modify an article anytime and having those changes be visible by anon users
(people just happening upon it) and editable immediately.
>From: Keith Maxwell <cremedelacreme04(a)yahoo.com.au>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?
>Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:54:21 +1000 (EST)
>
>Fellow Wikipedians,
>
>I agree with this proposal providing that all experienced users who over a
>period of time have made valuable contributions to the subject in question
>are eligible to approve edits after an election.
>
>I would think that the editorial board would consist of a number of people
>with qualifications in the relevant area and people with an interest in the
>topic. For example while most if not all people in technical areas like
>maths and physics would have degrees if not advanced degrees, the people
>who write articles on areas of general interest such as sport or popular
>culture would be more varied.
>
>It should be seen as a method of ensuring that we consolidate what we have
>and provide assurances that Wikipedia is a generally reliable information
>source rather than excluding anyone from making a contribution. The
>individuals contributions to Wikipedia rather than just credentialism
>should be the key to becoming part of the editorial board.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/